|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend must labour that point. In 1961, I was one of the leaders of an anti-ugly march, protesting against an appalling building in Cambridge. If, on the edge of that march, there had been some disorder--and there was--I could evidently have "contributed to" it as one of the march's leaders. Is that a
Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us what he means by "contributed to", as distinct from "caused". For example, if someone had organised a coach tour on which some people behaved in a thoroughly reprehensible manner, is he held to have contributed to the offence and will he be prevented from travelling to football matches? What if someone had contributed in his youth as a student organiser to events that turned a bit unruly, and possibly at which an excessive amount of drink was consumed?
It is pretty offensive that we should be introducing to the law of our land the right of the constable to detain and of the courts to restrict the liberties of people who have done something that falls short of being proven a crime. What is most reprehensible of all is that the Bill allows the magistrates to double-guess, on a lower standard of proof, people who have previously been charged and not convicted, or even merely been arrested and not charged, and take that as evidence that they were guilty of an offence. That is bad not only for the individuals whose liberty may be infringed but for respect for the law, as doubt is cast on the conclusions of the courts and the forces of law and order.
For all those reasons, I strongly support the widest of the amendments, which would comprehensively remove the offensive aspects of the Bill. I also support the narrower amendments. I do not want us to be reduced to the converse of the famous anti-Australian story that causes such offence to my Australian relatives, about the chap who arrived in Australia without a visa. Immigration officials asked him all sorts of tedious questions about his place of birth and his mother's maiden name, and he got more and more irritated, so that when they asked whether he had any criminal convictions, he unwisely said, "I didn't realise they were still required to get into Australia." Under the Bill, one does not even need a criminal conviction to be prevented from leaving the United Kingdom. That will give the last laugh to the Australians.
I have some factual issues that I would like the Home Secretary to address on the amendments. How many people does he believe are likely to be affected, or are being targeted by the Bill? How many people do not have banning orders against them but are believed to be the sort of people whom we should stop going abroad to football matches because they might provoke the sort of disorder that we saw on our television screens occurring in Belgium, although not in Holland? How many of the people that the Home Secretary expects to fall within the ambit of the legislation are likely to be restricted from travelling not because of a previous conviction for a criminal offence, but because they have caused or contributed to violence at a lower level than would constitute a criminal offence?
I suspect that the Home Secretary will say that he does not know how many, but that legislation is necessary to stop all who might do such things. However, he was able to be quantitative when it came to justifying the Bill as a whole. He referred to the 965 people arrested in Charleroi
I would like to know a little more about those convictions. What proportion had criminal convictions for violence? What proportion were for disorder and what proportion for motoring offences? The Home Secretary is not listening at the moment, but I hope that his officials will wake him up and ask him to tell us more about those 42 per cent. with some sort of conviction.
Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that I was not listening and I shall go back to the debate and find out whether the Home Secretary did tell us how many had motoring offences. Perhaps he can remember and remind those of us who were inattentive so that we have that fact, which he thought important enough to give us then, to consider now. If he does not remember it, perhaps he could withdraw his accusation that I am somehow reprehensible for forgetting it too. [Interruption.] It appears that the Home Secretary does not know, any more than I do.
Mr. Lilley: Indeed, there was a presumption that on the balance of probabilities any one of those 965 was guilty of some offence because they had all been arrested by the Belgian authorities, even though 964 of them were never charged or convicted of any offence. I think that it is rather important for the Home Secretary to give the House information as to how many people will fall foul of the Bill if it targets only those whom he intends it to target.
The Home Secretary should also consider whether other people might fall foul of the Bill unintentionally. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said that not all ferry travellers were "entirely endearing" in their behaviour. I use the ferry to France at least six times a year, and my hon. Friend's description of some of my fellow passengers is correct. Under the influence of drink, some behave in a way that is a little too effusive, but they do not necessarily commit any criminal offence.
If the constabulary consider that those people are travelling to a football match, will they be detained and brought before a magistrate? How often could that happen? What harm might the fear of that action do to the relations between the police and the general public?
Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West): I wish to make three points in support of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. First, I see no mention in the Bill of the police being required to ask if people are going to a football match. That seems a basic point because otherwise they will have to guess where people are going.
Secondly, it has been suggested that alleged hooligans might leave the country via Scottish airports. If a Scot making a brief visit to England is detained by a policeman who thinks that he is a potential football hooligan, will the policeman be able to prevent the Scot from returning to his domicile in Scotland if there happens to be a football match somewhere in the area? That would not seem right.
Throughout history, from Helen of Troy onwards, attractive females have often caused disorder--wars, or something less. Will a lady who in the past has caused men to behave riotously be prevented from going to a football match where she may again cause such behaviour?
Mr. Banks: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He mentioned Helen of Troy and said that many wars had been caused by attractive women. May I test his historical knowledge and ask him to give the House a list of all the wars caused by attractive women? I thought most wars were caused by very ugly men.